Trump DID support the Iraq war. You again are just repeating something you heard come out of his mouth. So frustrating man. This is not a fuckin game, this guy is a deeply, deeply racist, classist, Machiavellian proto-fascist. I never thought I would live to see a candidate who actually, truly deserves to be compared to Adolf Hitler, but the kinds of things Trump says mirror very closely many of the things young, moderate Hitler spewed.

and fuzzy you are never going to live it down when Trump loses and the election is not even close.

If Hillary gets the nom, it will indeed be close, because of people like me who won't toe the line, or moderates who were never voting democrat before. And this isn't my opinion, there's good data on this. Not saying I would vote for Trump, but I'd crack a beer and watch. He's entertaining and could never accomplish half of the things he says. He is infinitely less scary than Ted Cruz's desire to fulfill the Book of Revelations.

Bottom line is its looking like Clinton v Trump and if you listen carefully you can hear the knives sharpening now.

Things to remember:

1) Obama didn't take the lead over Hillary until the 36th state primary/caucus in 2008.

2) Only 15 states have voted so far. With 21.4% of elected delegates assigned, Sanders trails Clinton by only 3.7%.

3) Clinton has a stranglehold on the deep south, and Sanders was never going to win there (Alabama, for example, just legalized interracial marriage in 2000, and South Carolina only recently stopped flying the confederate flag)

4) Massachusetts is the only unexpected Sanders loss, and he lost by a much slimmer margin than Obama did in 2008.

5) Superdelegates align themselves with whoever gains the most elected delegates. Were they to do otherwise, the party would literally splinter in half.

6) The media and the DNC skew all of this information to suppress turnout. Don't buy into it

Look, I know Trumps a loud mouth and all, but the guys obviously very intelligent. I think a lot of people are selling him short.

Is he the best option to lead America? Hell-no... But he certainly stands above the other stiffs competing for the Repbublican nominee

You are right on this, and it's something many liberals are overlooking, out of sheer ignorance or emotional gut reaction.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Trump is applying smart marketing strategy to a targeted market. The uneducated, the xenophobic, the anti-establishment voters - the things Trump says are often completely unrelated to his own personal disposition, whatever that may be. He says these things to gain approval, to amass votes, and to gain power.

Why is the RNC shitting itself right now? BECAUSE HE ISN'T IN THEIR POCKETS. FOLLOW THE FUCKING MONEY. Trump'S and the RNC's ideology overlap perfectly, but this has never been about ideology, beyond its application as a tool to manipulate voters and gain their approval.

Trump is no more of a demagogue than the rest of the Republican establishment, he's just BETTER at demagoguery than the establishment pricks who are themselves beholden to specific corporate interests.

Who knows what a president Trump would actually do. It could be horrifying, or it could be more or less the same as the last 8 years, but consider this: the DNC and the RNC are playing the same exact game. They take money from interest groups who oppose change, often times the same groups. The DNC offers the illusion of change, while the RNC refuses it outright. FOLLOW THE MOTHER FUCKING MONEY.

Sanders is done, Mr. "there's good data on it." Mathematically he has no serious path to nomination now. If Clinton were to get indicted, things would change, but barring something crazy it's over.

You're aware that California accounts for over 20% of the electorate and is by far the most liberal state in the country, yes? All he needs is a 60% victory on the west coast to counterbalance the confederate states

Sanders is done, Mr. "there's good data on it." Mathematically he has no serious path to nomination now. If Clinton were to get indicted, things would change, but barring something crazy it's over.

Are you aware that the "good data" statement was made in the context of Trump versus Clinton nationally? Every major poll shows Clinton and Trump within the margin of error, which was my original point: turnout WILL be lower for the Dems if Clinton is the nominee

Oh I'm not denying that the vast majority of all wealth is inherited, nor that Trump was a benefactor. I just don't think you can reduce all of this to simple coincidence. He's been considering a presidential run for a very long time, and he's chosen his brand, demographic, and marketing strategy

There are a couple of narratives you could draw from these numbers. One is that Trump had a conservative conversion moment of sorts and immediately changed his views (and donation patterns) accordingly.

Or, perhaps, he was simply seeking to grow (or, more accurately, buy) influence among Republicans.

I'm admittedly not following this election as closely as you Americans are and have only really paid occasional attention, but according to CNN (I didn't read their polling methodology, but most polls these days are self-selected internet or "random" landline ones that aren't very reliable or valid, and only represent the best inferences we can make given what's feasible), either Democratic candidate beats Trump easily in the general election. The GOP is likely to nominate its least electable candidate, which is a good thing.

However, the Democrats are also likely to nominate their less-electable candidate. CNN says that Sanders would probably beat any Republican in a general election. Clinton easily beats Trump, but she could lose to Rubio or Cruz. Cruz is the scary one, because he's only slightly less insane than Trump. I don't even know if that's accurate. He's more of a qualitatively different brand of insane.

I have no idea how predictive polls this early on are, but if an election were held today, it'd be Clinton vs. Trump, and Clinton would win, so it wouldn't be a disaster.

Even though part of me likes that Trump is doing so well because it is the best way to ensure the defeat of his party, there is the part of me that resents that there is even any sort of sizable part of the population that likes him. On this side of the border, the Conservative Party tried to make banning the niqab during citizenship ceremonies (and possibly even the public sector) an election issue. The Conservatives lost, leading a lot of people to chalk it up to the party alienating people with their xenophobic dog-whistle politics. But when you actually look at the numbers, the majority of people agreed with the Cons on this issue, and the NDP lost a sizable chunk of support in Quebec (the province that had allowed them to grow to become the Official Opposition in the previous election, but is also one of the more xenophobic parts of the country).

The reason the Cons didn't win isn't because Canadians rejected their fear mongering, it's because other issues just happened to be more important to them than this issue, such as the economy. It doesn't change the fact that it's disturbing that most people liked that proposed policy.

I was concerned that Bush and Christie dropping out would mean that the establishment Republican vote would stop being split and Rubio would have a better chance at winning the nomination, but it doesn't look like it's happening and Trump & Cruz are still bulldozing him.

Feels good that the GOP is so fractured that even their radical insurgency that was tearing apart the party is itself facing another radical insurgency.

I remember somebody (Blanket_Skies or JSapp or something, I think) placed a bet in which the loser would have to change their avatar to a picture of the president. I think the signature had to be something funny, too, and it couldn't be some ironic statement to invalidate the avatar.

I remember Beltey not accepting the bet, which was probably the first indication that some part of him knew he just wasn't going to win.

I have no idea how predictive polls this early on are, but if an election were held today, it'd be Clinton vs. Trump, and Clinton would win, so it wouldn't be a disaster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Order 66

the only republican with a realistic chance in the general is rubio. demographics and electoral math make it very, very unlikely the next president is republican.

All of this is true, but there's a lot of mudslinging and soundbytes for Trump to throw around in the next ten months. His trajectory has been steadily going upward for a very long time, with no signs of slowing down. Not to mention Clinton has an indictment hanging over her head, frivolous as it may be. Then there's this:

We’ve now seen 15 states vote in the Democratic contest, and it’s clear that Clinton’s coalition is wider than Sanders’s. Sanders has won only in relatively small states where black voters make up less than 10 percent of the population. That’s not going to work this year when black voters are likely to make up more than 20 percent of Democratic primary voters nationwide.

This lead [of 200 delegates] is pretty much insurmountable. Democrats award delegates proportionally, which means Sanders would need to win by big margins in the remaining states to catch up. He hasn’t seen those kinds of wins outside of his home state of Vermont and next-door New Hampshire...

The votes on the Democratic side so far have been fairly predictable based on demographics; it just so happens that those demographics favor Clinton.

This one is more complex and speculative. Nate Silver basically says yes Trump leads in a lot of polls but the fact is so far only 34% of all Republican voters have cast votes for him. His lead is not insurmountable yet. His followers are very loyal but there may be reason to believe Trump has a "ceiling" at which he will be unable to build further support. The Super Tuesday results made no improvement to Trump's performance from previous elections either.

This election periods been entertaining as hell. The Republican party's fucking shaking in their boots right now and it's hilarious. Word is the establishment is pushing out Mitt Romney to deliver a long, passionate Anti-Trump speech today to beg the public to vote for Cruz or Rubio instead before the FOX Republican debate... Funny thing is, only 4 years ago Romney was onstage praising Trump left and right, talking about what a great guy he is.

These establishment politicians are worse than teenagers chasing a girl and then losing out to a buddy and then declaring all vitriol and insults on said buddy out of sheer and utter jealousy.

These clowns like Romney don't understand that by using these slimy, used car salesmen tactics that they're just energizing Trumps base more by feeding the idea that they're the underdogs and that they gotta fight against the establishment.

Looks like little Hilary's disregard for the law and the safety of her country is coming back to kick her square in the ass. The Justice Dept granted immunity to the staffer who set up Clintons email server.

Can you guys imagine if Trump had a scandal like this coinciding with the election? His ass would be grass.

It's amazing how many Americans are so attracted to this vile, unlikable woman.

"I know literally nothing about policy and am unable to think in terms outside judging a popularity contest on vague moral platitudes. I am also not smart enough to learn to analyze things in a more logical way so I am going to keep repeating the same things over and over again and acting like not knowing things is just as good as knowing them."